Advertisement

Ureteral pseudodiverticulosis and urothelial cell carcinoma: rethinking the association

  • Matthew A. Morgan
  • Wynne Yuru Chua
  • Hanna M. Zafar
  • Nicholas Papanicolaou
  • Parvati Ramchandani
Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare frequency of new and recurrent urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) among patients with and without pseudodiverticulosis on imaging.

Methods

This retrospective case–control study compared all 113 sequential patients with ureteral pseudodiverticulosis on radiographic urography between 1/1/2002 and 12/31/2012. Six patients were lost to follow-up. 107 patients without pseudodiverticulosis were matched by imaging modality, clinical indication, and tumor grade. Known UCC and primary outcome of new or recurrent UCC were determined through pathology on cystoscopy or clinical follow-up.

Results

Nearly half of patients with pseudodiverticulosis had known UCC at the time of imaging (49/107, 46%). Mean cystoscopy follow-up was 7.0 and 4.6 years for pseudodiverticulosis cases with and without known UCC, respectively, and 7.5 and 7.3 years for controls, respectively. Mean clinic follow-up was 7.5 and 6.0 years for pseudodiverticulosis cases with and without known UCC, respectively, and 6.4 and 7.6 years for controls, respectively. Among patients with known UCC at the time of imaging, similar rates of recurrent UCC were demonstrated on follow-up among patients with pseudodiverticulosis (6/49, 12%) and without (7/49, 14%). Among patients with no known history of UCC at the time of imaging, no patients with pseudodiverticulosis developed UCC on follow-up and 5% (3/58) of patients without pseudodiverticulosis developed UCC.

Conclusion

Although half of patients with ureteral pseudodiverticulosis have a known diagnosis of UCC, the presence of pseudodiverticulosis did not signify an increased likelihood of developing new or recurrent UCC over the follow-up period.

Keywords

Ureter Pseudodiverticulosis Urothelial cell carcinoma Retrograde pyelogram 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding for this study.

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

A waiver for informed consent was granted by the institutional IRB

References

  1. 1.
    Wasserman NF, Posalaky IP, Dykoski R (1988) The pathology of ureteral pseudodiverticulosis. Investig Radiol 23(8):592–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spalluto LB, Woodfield CA (2009) Ureteral pseudodiverticulosis: a unique case diagnosed by multidetector computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33(2):286–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kawashima A, Vrtiska TJ, LeRoy AJ, et al. (2004) CT urography. Radiographics 24(Suppl 1):S35–S54 ((discussion S55–S58))CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vrtiska TJ, Hartman RP, Kofler JM, et al. (2009) Spatial resolution and radiation dose of a 64-MDCT scanner compared with published CT urography protocols. Am J Roentgenol 192(4):941–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krishnan V, Chawla A, Sharbidre KG, Peh WCG (2018) Current techniques and clinical applications of computed tomography urography. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 47(4):245–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wasserman NF, Zhang G, Posalaky IP, Reddy PK (1991) Ureteral pseudodiverticula: frequent association with uroepithelial malignancy. Am J Roentgenol 157(1):69–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wasserman NF, La Pointe S, Posalaky IP (1985) Ureteral pseudodiverticulosis. Radiology 155(3):561–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang SS, Boorjian SA, Chou R, et al. (2016) Diagnosis and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: AUA/SUO guideline. J Urol 196(4):1021–1029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kenney PJ, Wasserman NF (1987) Ureteral pseudodiverticulosis associated with carcinoma of renal pelvis. Urol Radiol 9(3):161–163PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic ImagingNational University Hospital, National University Health SystemSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations